Read: [next] [previous] message
Re: [d@DCC] Wacky world of the world wide wobble.
From: Russell McOrmond <russell _-at-_ flora.ca>
It's important to watch these things and remember just how 'squishy' the law is, and that judges are just as likely to make mistakes as anyone else. The law is not like software, where once you 'test' your code you will know how it will be run on other hardware. This is a lower court judge, and I hope this will be appealed as it is a nonsense judgment, but it's the way the current highly fallible legal system works. Note: It has been interpreted that providing links to something where you knew the contents is considered a form of authorization to download the file. If the resulting file is infringing, then you would be liable. This is not the case given the copyright holder of the file is the sender of the file, and thus I don't understand the basis of the infringement beyond finding a judge who could be confused into not understanding how the Web works with inline videos/images/etc. I didn't read the case but the judge might have been confused into believing that the other site was an unauthorized derivative of the original work. It's sad when people hire incompetent lawyers to argue cases in front of incompetent lawyers in order to hide from the fact they hired an incompetent webmaster. A few lines of code would have solved any "problem" they had. The same type of problem is happening in Canada with the lobbying around so-called "Educational use of the Internet". You see old-economy copyright holders that don't understand the difference between "DRM" and software that checks for passwords, cookies or referrer-lines in the HTTP header of a web request. See: Copyright and the Educational Use of Internet Content Working Group’s Report http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/incrp-prda.nsf/en/rp01115e.html Specifically http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/incrp-prda.nsf/en/rp01128e.html and the complete lack of technical knowledge demonstrated under "Forcing the use of TPM". While the report didn't put a name to the comments, I've heard them repeated by André Cornellier who is a photographer with extremely little knowledge our community would recognize as technical. It is clear that this is nonsense, but this is the type of thing that policy makers are hearing every day and they aren't necessarily any more technically literate than the people who are making these suggestions. Charles MacDonald wrote: > here is a link > http://ct.zdnet.com/clicks?t=23577219-5544b913210f6c6e8ff6d71d90cbdea1-bf&s=5&fs=0 > to a news story about a judge in textas who says that providing a link > like this > http://ct.zdnet.com/clicks?t=23577219-5544b913210f6c6e8ff6d71d90cbdea1-bf&s=5&fs=0 > is copyright infringment.. > > I sure would notwant to infringe copyright by providing Hyperlinks.. like > http://ct.zdnet.com/clicks?t=23577219-5544b913210f6c6e8ff6d71d90cbdea1-bf&s=5&fs=0 -- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/ "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or portable media player from my cold dead hands!" _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@list.digital-copyright.ca http://list.digital-copyright.ca/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Read: [next] [previous] message
List: [newer] [older] articles
You need to subscribe to post to this forum.